Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 29 Mar 2016 18:44

Surya wrote:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/exclusive-on-overweight-next-gen-arjun-tanks-drdo-chief-says-they-missed-the-point/1/629489.html

I don't what to say anymore

The amry wanting all these things to be added but weight nto to increase?

Or DRDO expecting the army to go along with it

what the eff happens in these meetings? :eek:


Arjun is getting shafted. It seems they keep sending it to the drawing board after completing trials with one reason or the other. That too for mere 118 order.

subhamoy.das
BRFite
Posts: 1027
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby subhamoy.das » 29 Mar 2016 19:47

DRDO should set the rule that 1 agni = 100 arjuns. So if the army orders 10 agnis, then it will also have to accept 1000 arjuns as an offset clause. Recent cancellation of canistered agni test could be a move in that direction

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17051
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 29 Mar 2016 20:25

I wish they had the arjun in the grey camo which it sported in early 90's.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2486
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Mar 2016 20:31

Unfortunately, the IA is betting on a MBT that lost to the Arjun. In war this could prove very costly. Sadly, we take our independence way too lightly.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 29 Mar 2016 21:37

Arun Menon wrote:Did anyone observe how smooth the hydropneumatic suspension is compared to the jerky torsion bar on the tin cans. Even the Kestrel has much better suspension than the wheeled junk from the tin can land.


Let me tell you another 'secret' about this suspension - you can raise or lower the silhouette of the tank!

When I first time saw Arjun in 93-94, I saw two tank with varying silhouette height. And wondered to myself as to how could DRDO make such a mistake and manufacture tanks of varying silhouette heights.... :P It was also one of the periods when DRDO had come under lot of flak. I was a avid newspaper reader and used to read articles on DRDO and Arjun and how DRDO fvkced up on this project. Looking at those two tanks with differing heights, I wondered if the articles were true after all.... :mrgreen:

But when the JCO sahab explained the whole suspension bit to me and lowered/raised the tank at the same stop courtesy the suspension, I was awestruck! Not to mention that the tank looked like a sports car after my experience with the T-72 and T-55.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 29 Mar 2016 21:43

Surya wrote:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/exclusive-on-overweight-next-gen-arjun-tanks-drdo-chief-says-they-missed-the-point/1/629489.html

I don't what to say anymore

The amry wanting all these things to be added but weight nto to increase?

Or DRDO expecting the army to go along with it

what the eff happens in these meetings? :eek:


True...it brings out the very first lesson my first boss taught me....ASSUMPTION is ASS of U and Me!

But having said that, I think Parrikar will make induction of more Arjun Mk2 happen. It seems he (and DRDO) has been told by the IA that Mk2 is 'X' tons over-weight and accordingly a target has been given. Given the track record of Parrikar, he would not hesitate to send a rocket up the back side of IA and DRDO if he were to find the whole exercise a hog-wash.

I think once Arjun Mk2 reduces 1-1.5 ton weight, Parrikar will get the IA to order a certain amount. That weight reduction target would've come from some logical explanation given to RM by IA. If IA dithers post this target, I expect chaps in black dungaree to suddenly find that this bloke is no idiot.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 29 Mar 2016 22:46

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 29 Mar 2016 22:47

That's 3 independent optical sights !

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 29 Mar 2016 23:52

Karan, sauce?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 30 Mar 2016 02:58

Still dont know what the box between the mine plows and in front of the glacis is. :-) It appears to have some wires going into it, so perhaps some kind of an electronic doo-dah? ground penetrating radar perhaps? :-)

Also the slightly rounded section to the left of the gunners main sight.. What does it have underneath?

What are the four thingy-jigs covered with red covers on the four corners of the turret?

One last question, what has replaced the storage sheet metal boxes on the turret sides towards the rear? Is the sharp shaping merely cosmetic? OR they have added some heft to mount ERA or just plain air to protect against shaped charges?

MK2 appears to be a thoroughly upgraded tank. Why its not used more in the Rajasthan sector with no rivers/canals is beyond me.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 30 Mar 2016 03:14

All the new acquisition of bridging equipment made by DRDO is rated as MLC-70. There is also Arjun BLT too with 26m span MLC-70 class bridge. Along with that all the new major bridges on civilian side are also classed at that rating. So, reducing Arjun MBT-2 by one or two tons is really a delaying tactic by the IA, IMO.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23370 » 30 Mar 2016 03:20

Why are ploughs always seen on Mk2? They should be detachable to save weight.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 30 Mar 2016 03:25

^^^

That would be your extra 1.5 tons right there :wink:

Image

They are detachable.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 30 Mar 2016 05:59

Does the Arjun have dazzlers similar to Shtora to disrupt ATGM guidance ?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3994
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby hnair » 30 Mar 2016 06:57

Has anyone commented on the most important MKII upgrade yet? Those nice new scooter helmets worn by the tank-crew? Definite upgrade on the russian retro-chic leather monkeycaps for sure. 8)

Those Kestrels are huge beasts! Good to finally see something from India, that is not "Light" or "medium". That thing can add a lot of stuff in future and looks like it can go deep into enemy territory

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 30 Mar 2016 10:22

srin wrote:Does the Arjun have dazzlers similar to Shtora to disrupt ATGM guidance ?


Yes. Covered in red bags in the above picture that Karan M has posted.

This is what it looks like (next to the guy):
Image
Image

Arjun Mk II Main Battle Tank
...
To increase the self-protection of the Arjun Mk-II, a laser warning and countermeasure system (ALWACS) developed in collaboration with the Israeli Company Elbit Systems is mounted on each side of the turret. The four ALWACS elements are mounted at each corner of the turret to provide 360-degree coverage. The system detects and classifies laser threats and fire smoke grenades from an independent rotary launcher.
...


Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 30 Mar 2016 11:37

Is there any official PR brochure listing out the changes between Mk-1 and Mk-2? Plus extra weight and cost too. Arjun's import content too would be a useful guide.What ATGM missiles will it fire from the main gun?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 30 Mar 2016 13:20

they should wrap a couple more angled plates around the gun infront of the flat panel and below the gunners main sight to complete the Leo2A5ski look.

this thing will eat, chew and shit out T90s all day.

firing ATGMs from main gun imo is a total waste of a MBTs limited 40-45 rounds storage...we need it packed to gunwales with heat, hesh and apds ...not crutches like atgms to make up for shortfalls in fire on move, thermals or fcs as seen in "those tanks which cannot be named"...outsource intelligence to the projectile to cover for shortfalls in the launcher :oops:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 30 Mar 2016 13:55

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 14h14 hours ago
Nirbhay test with SCAN seeker on the anvil.

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 14h14 hours ago
Beyond the first 114, the 52 Cal version of the Dhanush is likely to be procured.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 30 Mar 2016 14:31

The weight issue is a real one and most of our bridges cannot take MK2 weight. However there are some solutions :

Re mine ploughs, one option could be to keep only one or two troops in each MK 2 regt with mine ploughs. Every tank does'nt need a trawl. Heavy minefield breaching will be done by the Div Armoured Engr Regt (there are 3 - one each for each armoured Div). If we are inducting MK2 in numbers then we can also raise some Arjun MK1 based armoured Engr regts that can provide Engr support to Arjun Mk2 without Arjun Mk2 having trawls.

I am sure DRDO is looking at other ways to reduce weight.

Would be useful to get some numbers on cost of T72 upgrade that is being talked about and contrast it to Arjun MK2.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 30 Mar 2016 14:49

The weight issue is a real one and most of our bridges cannot take MK2 weight.


Any idea how many and what is their classification?

Have they ever considered prefabricated bridges? Quick and cheap.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 30 Mar 2016 15:05

Bailey and Kruppman are prefabricated bridges. All bridges held by the Corps of Engrs are prefabricated in that sense.

I'll try to get some horses mouth info on your question. Pls give me a few days.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_27581 » 30 Mar 2016 17:38

http://www.oneindia.com/india/drdo-s-hypersonic-vehicle-have-20-second-flight-dec-2054267.html

He said similar to the trials held on Mk1, the Arjun Mk-II will have line-to-line trials with T-90 soon.


That would be interesting to see

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2486
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 30 Mar 2016 17:50

The stink gets worse. The IA should back off. 1-1.5 tons is not going to do anything for the bridges. And every structure has a factor of safety - probably a factor of 3 in India (I remember from my Jr. Engr days). Also, it is not the load that makes the bridge fail but the resultant stress from the specific distribution of the load. With its large footprint, Mk-1/2 could be safe on the bridges. IMHO it is a "torsion bar failure" type attack on it.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2486
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 30 Mar 2016 18:07

IA is not only playing with national security but with the economic potential of the Arjun as well. IA's buying the Arjun in numbers would help push exports i.e. good paying jobs in India. By pushing the tincans, IA helps the economies of other nations while introducing a lesser weapon for national defence.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3994
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby hnair » 30 Mar 2016 18:31

Btw, where exactly does the IR Jammer shown in the info-board above located?

The above tank has nice symmetrical sloped ERA to the left of the gun. Whatever happened to the boxy sensor shown below?

Image

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 30 Mar 2016 19:55

Armoured vehicles are generally moved via rail which is more efficient. Indian bridges are not a problem on any of the highways generally, not so much on district roads bridges which connect the hinterland.

Highway bridges: In India, highway bridges are designed in accordance with IRC bridge code. IRC: 6 - 1966 – Section II gives the specifications for the various loads and stresses to be considered in bridge design. There are three types of standard loadings for which the bridges are designed namely,
IRC class AA loading
IRC class A loading
IRC class B loading


IRC class AA loading consists of either a tracked vehicle of 70 tonnes or a wheeled vehicle of 40 tonnes. Normally, bridges on national highways and state highways are designed for these loadings.


Link:http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105106113/9_bridges/4_load_&_load_combination.pdf

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 30 Mar 2016 21:36

Mihir wrote:Karan, sauce?


Mihir, didn't understand. Can you clarify?
See here
http://defense-update.com/20160329_defexpo_display.html

This is incredible stuff and top notch situational awareness.

IMHO IA is being incredibly obdurate by asking for weight reduction. What DRDO has done is put ERA on top of existing composite armor which was by itself considered to be equivalent to T-90 (ERA+ composite protection). Now its much higher over the frontal arc & with ALWCS reduces the need for ERA to begin witH. I hope DRDO does NOT reduce the armor to meet IA requirement.

Anyways, if IA had given more time DRDO should have redesigned the entire turret to match Leo2A6 style but there is only so much space on top of the turret for sights, but even that RCWS is heavy duty and proper - with solid construction.
3 sets of optical sights, the GMS is protected from sides, and now if they get a new FSAPDS Mk3 in place, this tank will be a beast even with Mk1 legacy.
IIRC even Kanchan is on latest iteration so even the basic composite armor protection has only increased.

IMO, they should think of upgrading the ALWCS to a FSAPDS equivalent Iron Fist etc.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 30 Mar 2016 21:47


nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nachiket » 30 Mar 2016 23:04

Singha wrote:firing ATGMs from main gun imo is a total waste of a MBTs limited 40-45 rounds storage...we need it packed to gunwales with heat, hesh and apds ...not crutches like atgms to make up for shortfalls in fire on move, thermals or fcs as seen in "those tanks which cannot be named"...outsource intelligence to the projectile to cover for shortfalls in the launcher :oops:

Tanks which cannot be named also have an inherent drawback in their APFSDS rounds due to their shorter length (two-piece ammo needed for the auto-loader). That's why the acute need for firing ATGM's from the main gun. Arjun does not share this drawback. Of course, this won't stop usual suspects from exclaiming "OMG! Arjun does not fire ATGMs. It is inferior onlee!" every once in a while, like clockwork.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 30 Mar 2016 23:11

Army has never discriminated against only Arjun. They have done the same to FMBT and FICV proposal ie Set up complicated hurdles to kill the project. The learning from Arjun mischief has been applied to Pinaka, Prahaar, Akash, Nag, Dhanush, 120mm mortar, advanced Carl Gustaf, Air Defense Gun, etc. Let me think which indigenous project has been supported whole heartedly by Army with massive orders without political directive? hmmmm......

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2016 03:24

nachiket wrote:
Singha wrote:firing ATGMs from main gun imo is a total waste of a MBTs limited 40-45 rounds storage...we need it packed to gunwales with heat, hesh and apds ...not crutches like atgms to make up for shortfalls in fire on move, thermals or fcs as seen in "those tanks which cannot be named"...outsource intelligence to the projectile to cover for shortfalls in the launcher :oops:

Tanks which cannot be named also have an inherent drawback in their APFSDS rounds due to their shorter length (two-piece ammo needed for the auto-loader). That's why the acute need for firing ATGM's from the main gun. Arjun does not share this drawback. Of course, this won't stop usual suspects from exclaiming "OMG! Arjun does not fire ATGMs. It is inferior onlee!" every once in a while, like clockwork.


Modern counter measure systems like ALWACS mounted on Arjun MK.2 can detect a laser ranger finder aiming at the tank. So a T-90S locking on it and firing its barrel-launched ATGM could be triangulated and fired back upon.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jayasimha » 31 Mar 2016 09:17

Gyan wrote:Army has never discriminated against only Arjun. They have done the same to FMBT and FICV proposal ie Set up complicated hurdles to kill the project. The learning from Arjun mischief has been applied to Pinaka, Prahaar, Akash, Nag, Dhanush, 120mm mortar, advanced Carl Gustaf, Air Defense Gun, etc. Let me think which indigenous project has been supported whole heartedly by Army with massive orders without political directive? hmmmm......


When army was sent to srilanka, i was told they were made to do there duty analogous to tying one hand and then do the fighting with LTTE. i.e. there were hell lot of restriction to even aim and shoot at the enemy.

can i assume the same thing is played here.. the "real" decision maker might some one else somewhere else dictating terms...

only time will tell...

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ArmenT » 31 Mar 2016 09:34

Philip wrote:Is there any official PR brochure listing out the changes between Mk-1 and Mk-2? Plus extra weight and cost too. Arjun's import content too would be a useful guide.What ATGM missiles will it fire from the main gun?

Last year, uddu posted a video from a Tamil TV program where they interviewed a bunch of CVRDE folks, who talked in some detail about the improvements. Translation of that interview can be found in these two links:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1806724#p1806724
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1806726#p1806726

It should answer some of the questions you've asked above.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 31 Mar 2016 09:54

Karan, I was just asking for the source of that particular photo :)

Agree with you about the situational awareness et. al. What a beast!

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28990 » 31 Mar 2016 10:05

really hope that this is the start of Arjun's revival. Vanvaas is over, agyaatvaas will be over very soon, time to kick butt.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 31 Mar 2016 10:28

70t nature of bridges on NH and SH have been the norm since atleast the 80s when I was a kid, multiple of my uncles were civil engineers in state govt and I got to visit sites for bridges, dams, tunnels with them on official tours as a school kid.

newer bridges might have higher limits.

dont know how the bridges in punjab and jammu are once you get off SH into village level roads and more importantly how shtrong on the TSP side :lol:

raj and guj border have no real water bodies ..... the rann ofcourse floods in rains and is too soft for any vehicular movement in wet season.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3939
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arshyam » 31 Mar 2016 17:05

Singha wrote:...and more importantly how shtrong on the TSP side :lol:

This shouldn't be a factor for our decision making. We should assume the opposite side will blow up their bridges anyway, and we still have to get across. Either the tank fords the water by itself, if the river is shallow, or we use a BLT to build our own temporary bridge. Wasn't there a BLT version of the Arjun too? What's the load limit of such bridges?

Also, can someone explain if and how the ground pressure of the tank helps in evaluating whether a bridge can support a tank? I remember reading on an earlier avatar of this thread that the Arjun Mk-1's ground pressure is lower than, or at least comparable to the T-90's. Not sure what the equivalent numbers for the Mk-2 are.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 31 Mar 2016 18:28

That is why I said earlier that most bridges held by the Corps of Engrs cannot handle Arjun MK2 for sure. I am not sure about MK1. I know from open sources that some Sarvatra (good truck based bridge) bridges were ordered from BEML (developed by L&T and DRDO R&D Engrs and both wanted L&T to build them but AKA gave BEML the order). I don't know how many have been inducted. I am trying to get information.

Re BLT I don't think any exist for Arjun because all the BLTs held by the 3 Armoured Engr Regts are for the T series. AFAIK all three hold T72 based BLTs. If we induct more Arjuns then we can base a full armoured div on Arjun and raise/convert an Engr Regt.

Please bear with me for 2/3 days while I try to get some non classified info. Bridging info is sensitive as you can understand.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2016 18:36

hnair wrote:Btw, where exactly does the IR Jammer shown in the info-board above located?


There is no IR Jammer. It has LWS sensors and can put out a smoke cloud with grenade launchers. IMHO a very simple and elegant solution because IR jammers have to be constantly upgraded to match the latest ATGMs but no optical system can see through anti IR/dense smoke and chances of miss increase by huge amount.

Mihir, Danvir Singh of ID Review


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests